Married Women and Tax Resistance

Married Women and Tax Resistance.

From a leaflet issued by the Women’s Tax Resistance League, and costing
2d., we take the following
extracts:

The position of married women in relation to the direct annual taxes, such
as Super Tax, Income Tax, Property Tax, and Inhabited House Duty, is a
very simple one, and easily grasped. No married woman is liable for any of
these taxes. It is illegal to demand payment from her, to enforce or attempt
to enforce payment, or even to ask her to furnish particulars of her
property or income. This total exemption of the married woman from taxability
arises out of the ancient and now nearly obsolete law of coverture, which
holds that a husband and wife are “one,” and the husband is that
“one.” Therefore the Income Tax Act, which was passed in
1842, but still holds good, stipulates that no
married woman shall be held liable for taxes. Section 45 of that Act reads
thus:— “Provided always, that the profits of any married
woman living with her husband shall be deemed to be the profits of the
husband, and the same shall be charged in the name of the husband,
and not in her name, nor of her trustee.”

The above clause has never been repealed, and still governs the case of
the Super Tax, the Income Tax, the Property Tax, and the Inhabited House
Duty.

The ruling powers delight in asserting and maintaining the “disabilities” of
the married woman. They decline to recognise her as a parental unit. They
deny her the privilege of being a mayor or a municipal councillor, and
insist that even if the single woman is given the Parliamentary vote, the
married woman must not be allowed to participate in the privilege. In short,
they believe in the law of coverture when it suits themselves. But women are
now too wide awake to allow the game of “having it both ways” to be longer
played on them. They know better than to continue to submit to a policy
which may be summed up as, Heads I win — tails you lose.

Married women in receipt of incomes can testify, from their own experience,
as to whether the law in regard to their non-taxability is obeyed, or
whether it is openly and flagrantly defied. It appears that large numbers
of married women are paying taxes regularly, without making the slightest
protest against the illegal procedure of which they are the victims. This is
probably due to their ignorance of their legal status (or rather, lack of
status) just as many of them are unaware that they are not the legal
“parents” of their children.

When pressed on the subject of married women and taxes, the Somerset House
and Treasury officials will not, in fact dare not, deny that their methods
are illegal. If asked to show their authority for imposing taxes on married
women, they cultivate a stony silence. All the chicanery of the
“Circumlocution Office” is brought into play, and anyone who likes can
repeat the experience of Arthur Clennam in
“Little Dorrit,”
by writing a few letters, or making a call at Somerset House, where “knowing
nothing” has been brought to a fine art. Officialdom finds itself incapable
of understanding the simplest question, when the question happens to be one
to which it can find no answer, and which is asked by a woman.

Many married women, including leading actresses, doctors, titled women,
business women, and various others having property, businesses, investments,
&c., or
being in receipt of salaries, have succeeded in demonstrating their
non-taxability, and thereby involved the Revenue in a total loss of the tax
illegally charged on them.

Liberals in general profess to regard taxation without representation as
tyranny, therefore let every woman Suffragist who is in a position to do so
refuse to pay Income Tax — and let every such woman who occupies a house of
more than £20 a year rental refuse to pay House Duty, until the
enfranchisement of women has been secured by Act of Parliament, and has
become an operative part of the law of the land. Women have been patient far
too long. The time for prompt, vigorous, and decisive action is now here — and with such prompt, vigorous, and decisive action our cause, which in its
ultimate issues is the cause of justice to half the human race, will be
speedily won.

Davi Barker has written an interesting series of articles on “Authoritarian
Sociopathy” summarizing some of the work done to extend the findings of the
Milgram and Stanford prison experiments:

Authoritarian Sociopathy — if you invent a role that incentivizes evil many people will willingly adjust to the role and become evil; if you internalize “obedience to authority” as a core personality trait you will become capable of murder and tolerant of abuse

Power and Deception — people placed into positions of authority are less troubled by their own unethical behavior

Power and Compassion — powerful people become less able to sympathize with the suffering of other people

Power and Hypocrisy — powerful people develop a double-standard of judging ethical lapses in which they give themselves a pass but judge others harshly for the same behavior — but there’s a catch, and it just might work in our favor

Find Out More!

For more information on the topic or topics below (organized as “topic →
subtopic →
sub-subtopic”), click on any of the ♦ symbols to see other pages on this site that cover the topic. Or browse the site’s topic index at the “Outline” page.